This report from the Pew Charitable Trusts says that many states are reconsidering the costs of Common Core testing, and a small number have withdrawn from participation in the two federally-funded tests, PARCC or Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.
“But as controversy over the Common Core has challenged some states’ commitment to the standards, a number of states have decided to withdraw from PARCC or Smarter Balanced or to use alternative tests, raising questions about the cost of the tests and the long-term viability of the multistate testing groups, which received $360 million in federal grants to develop the tests. The federal grants will end this fall, and it is unclear whether the testing groups will continue past that point.
“What gets tested is what gets taught,” said Joan Herman, co-director emeritus of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing at UCLA. “To the extent that the assessments well represent the spirit and meaning of the standards, the spirit and meaning of the standards will get taught. Where the assessments fall short, curriculum, instruction and teaching will likely fall short as well.”
Federal law prohibits any officer or agency of the federal government from attempting to influence or control curriculum or instruction in the nation’s public schools. It is axiomatic that “what gets tested is what gets taught,” so it is surprising that the U.S. Department of Education funded these two testing consortia; private foundations should have done it.
In the article, several “experts” are quoted about the minimal costs of switching to the new tests, but at least one of them points out that the low-ball estimates rarely include the costs of new technology and additional bandwidth.
At a time when many states are cutting education budgets and increasing class sizes, some states will find it challenging to increase their spending on assessment.
Unmentioned in the article is the issue of computer-scored testing. Students in theory will answer questions by explaining why they answered as they did. Computers will evaluate their “deeper thinking” as well as their essays. Les Perelman of MIT has demonstrated that robo-graders are unable to tell the difference between sense and nonsense so long as the sentences are structurally sound. Yet millions of students will be judged by computers that are unable to discern irony, wit, creativity, humor, or even fact.
Whose idea was it to put all testing online? Dumb idea. In my view, which doesn’t count as much as Arne Duncan’s or Bill Gates’, most tests should be written by teachers (they know what they taught) and graded by teachers (so they can discover immediately what students learned and did not learn).
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is the NYTimes panel on testing in public schools:
Lunch Session
Putting Assessment to the Test
Students, teachers and parents are weary of testing. Do standardized tests accurately reflect a student’s knowledge or a teacher’s effectiveness? Without this type of assessment how do we know whether our schools are preparing students for success in college, career and life? What role do noncognitive outcomes, especially traits like grit and self-control, play in learning and evaluating students?
Moderated by Marc S. Sternberg director of K–12 investments, The Walton Family Foundation
Dr. Martin West, associate professor of education, Harvard Graduate School of Education; deputy director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Program on Education Policy and Governance; and executive editor of Education Next
Richard Barth, chief executive officer, KIPP Foundation and president, KIPP Foundation Board of Directors
This panel discussion is sponsored by The Walton Family Foundation.
Apparently, they couldn’t find a single person who works in or around a public school.
Chiara, re Néw York Times assessment panel. No teacher, no testing critic.
From the Pew report:
“And because the Smarter Balanced exams are different for each student, with computers adjusting the difficulty level of questions based on students’ responses, they can also be administered over a longer period, whereas the previous state tests had to be administered on a single day to prevent cheating. ”
Since the questions are different for each student, they are not standardized exams.
And if a kid gets lucky and correctly guesses the answer to a difficult question, the questions which follow, adjusted by the algorithm, will be more difficult than if he had guessed wrong. So the exams aren’t valid, either.
Want to prevent cheating? Remove the high stakes outcomes.
USDE has violated federal law, but not only in funding the tests. Here is part of a narrative I wrote early in 2011 as one fiasco followed another.
After awarding $300 million to the two consortia in September 2010, leaders in USDE and in the consortia “suddenly“ discovered that tests for the CCSS had to be tied to curriculum. Thus, in January 2011 USDE awarded each consortium about $15 million in supplementary funding for curriculum work. That is illegal under federal law. So are the tests.
PARCC’s request for supplementary funding included an uncertain “could” and firm “will” approach to producing model courses and ancillary materials by the end of 2011.
“Each model unit could include components such as: instructional materials; formative activities that would give teachers information they need about student understanding relative to the CCSS and PARCC assessments; professional development materials for educators; and tools to inform conversations between principals and teachers, teachers and students, and teachers and parents about the results of the through course assessments. The units developed by PARCC will serve as powerful models for others to develop similar tools for other standards or grades, and will help states and districts evaluate the quality and alignment of similar tools in the market (PARCC, 2010, December, p. 4, application for suppemenary curriculum funds).
After allocating $330 million for assessments tied to curriculum, the USDE and consortia discovered there might be a large number of feasibility issues in getting the tests up and running for every student including uncalculated costs for the technology.
After releasing the Standards with much publicity about international benchmarking, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the owner of the CCSS, helped to fund a study that shows these Standards are not, in fact, closely aligned with the standards of nations that score higher on international tests. What?
In mathematics, for example, the nations with the highest test scores—Finland, Japan, and Singapore—devote about 75% of instruction to “perform procedures” compared to the CCSS emphasis at about 38%. These same nations give almost no attention to “solve non-routine problems.” What? In ELA, countries that score at the highest level also have patterns of emphasis in certain grade spans that differ substantially from the CCSS, The big surprise is that a significant part of “perform procedures” in mathematics and ELA is following directions and completing highly conventional assignments, free of elaborated analysis and generalization In other words, compliance with the conventions of schooling has a strong association with higher test scores. Porter, A.; McMaken ,J.; Hwang, J. ; & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S. in-tended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3). 103-116. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X11405038
Finally, the CCSS initiative has been contrived to maintain the pretense of not being a giant step toward a nationalized system of standards, assessments, and curriculum-based instruction. That pretense will be difficult to maintain given the promises made by the two consortia. They are seeking “comparability” in their tests and cut scores.
PARCC will “coordinate with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium on… artificial intelligence scoring, setting achievement levels, and anchoring high school assessments in the knowledge and skills students need to be prepared for postsecondary education and careers” (PARCC, 2010, December, p. 3).
Similarly, the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) asserts: “SBAC and PARCC are strongly committed to ensuring comparability between their assessments…[including] collaborative standard setting that will facilitate valid comparisons of achievement levels (cut scores) in each consortium’s summative test…” (SMARTER, 2011, p. 31).
The great irony in this totally bungled reform is this: Proponents of this initiative are filled with rhetoric about the importance of scientific principles of management, especially perfected alignments among standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessments.
Can you give me a source that verifies that PARCC tests will be scored by computer and not by people? I just had this conversation with an administrator today where I expressed concern regarding my special education students being penalized by computer graded testing because of their lack of spelling skills and poor grammar. She assured me that tests would be graded by people. When others stated that math teachers graded the test I assured them that this was not the case referencing past articles written by temp graders hired by Pearson, but I have no difinitive answer on computer scoring. I appreciate the help!
Shauna
Well it is going to cost Illinois a fortune to take the PARRC test this year if anyone has to take it pencil/paper because MOST of the schools are definitely not ready. Illionios suddenly, and I really mean suddenly as in August 25, told every school district they needed to fill out this ITRAx form to see if their schools were ready for computer based tests this year. Oh and did I mention they had to be filled out by September 15th. They want to know EVERYTHING about EVERY schools’ infrastructure and what types of computers are in each room to see if we can cram kids in anywhere to take tests. Well I filled out the survey and our school clearly doesn’t qualify for computer based tests but I’m sure the state/Pearson will fine us until we are ready (as I already know Pearson will be fining the state come spring). Well Pearson should have known this years ago and now they are dumping this mess in the state’s lap and the state into ours…..what joke. All I can say is this is going to cost everyone a small fortune to see their school fail by some joke of set of standards (CCSS/PARRC).
cary444: you have just described what “education reform” is all about.
Y’all are being forced to comply with unrealistic requirements in order to reach ill-conceived goals—and because you can’t do the impossible, you will be shamed and punished.
That’s what “no excuses” means.
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
😎
Reblogged this on Exceptional Delaware and commented:
How can anyone still support this idiotic curriculum and the even more stupid tests? The Vega was very popular too until it actually came out.
One cost that many analysts overlook is time: the “staff development” time teachers are spending learning how to use the computerized tests results; the time students are spending learning how to take computerized tests; the time teachers and/or administrators are taking to explain the tests to parents; and the time teachers and/or curriculum coordinators are taking to revamp their curricula so that students can attain ever-increasing test scores. Tabulate those lost hours and imagine what that time COULD have been used for if it wasn’t diverted to preparing for standardized tests.
“Federal law prohibits any officer or agency of the federal government from attempting to influence or control curriculum or instruction in the nation’s public schools.”
Wait a minute; what? So why aren’t these people being prosecuted?
What law? What is/are its/their number(s)?
Just a teacher. Here is what I think you are asking for.
Legal Restriction: “U. S. Congress. General Provisions Concerning Education. (2010, February). Section 438 (20 U.S.C. § 1232a). US Code TITLE 20 EDUCATION CHAPTER 31, SUBCHAPTER III, Part 2, §§ 1232a. Prohibition against Federal control of education. No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.” Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/20/usc_sup_01_20.html
Legal Restriction: “The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Section 9527 ESEA amended by NCLB (20 U.S.C. § 7907(a).1) This provision is based on 20 U.S.C. 7907(a) (Section 9527(a) of NCLB). Section 7907(a) is one of the ESEA’s general provisions contained in Title IX of the Act. It states: Nothing in this [Act] shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this [Act]. 20 U.S.C. 7907(a).”
Since 2002 federal officials have been threading legal needles with the carefully contrived language of “deniability” if they are accused of violating federal law.
No one in Congress has the interest or courage to call for the hearings needed to expose the damage, incompetence, and under the table deals with lobbyists–all enabling the destruction of public education except for the funding that will subsidize for-profit schemes conjured by billionaires who see education the nation’s young people as a source of profit and, in some cases,opportunity for indoctrination.
Laura Chapman,
Arne Duncan is fully aware of these provisions of the law. That’s why he claims that he has done nothing to influence or control curriculum or instruction. And why he keeps saying that CCSS is not curriculum. As if federal funding of two national tests has no connection to curriculum or instruction. As if he has no connection to CCSS, which does influence and direct and control curriculum and instruction.
They made a mistake in writing that no states have withdrawn from common core.